2021 Ohio 417
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Defendant Marc Conklin was charged with two counts of violating a civil stalking protection order (CSPO), one count of domestic violence, and one count of disorderly conduct (later dismissed) after a violent altercation with protected party Marisa Sobeski.
- Sobeski and her son testified Sobeski had been "staying with" Conklin and that Conklin grabbed her by the neck, slammed her to the floor, and attempted to take her phone; photographs taken ~1 hour after the incident showed bruising.
- Conklin testified Sobeski was highly intoxicated, bit his thumb during an altercation after slamming a microwave door, he acted in self‑defense, and he retrieved firearms believing the CSPO had been lifted based on Sobeski's statements.
- Deputies Falcone and Hildebrand testified they found a CSPO in effect (including a no‑firearm provision), recovered firearms from Conklin’s residence, and relayed Sobeski’s account; the court found the deputies and Sobeski’s son credible.
- Trial court convicted Conklin of both CSPO violations and domestic violence, imposed fines, jail/house‑arrest terms (with many days suspended), and probation; Conklin appealed challenging (1) household membership for domestic violence, (2) that he acted in good faith believing the CSPO was lifted, and (3) witness credibility/self‑defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Conklin and Sobeski were "family or household members" under R.C. 2919.25 | Evidence (testimony of Sobeski, her son, and Conklin) shows they cohabited within five years, satisfying the statute | They were not household members; Sobeski had her own residence and they did not share familial/financial responsibilities | Court: cohabitation within five years established; domestic violence conviction supported |
| Whether Conklin had a "good‑faith" belief the CSPO was lifted, negating a reckless violation under R.C. 2919.27 | CSPO prohibits contact even with petitioner’s permission; only court can change order; third‑party or petitioner statements cannot excuse respondent | Conklin relied on Sobeski’s statement that she moved to dismiss/vacate the CSPO and believed the order was lifted | Court: petitioner’s statements cannot create legal permission; Conklin bore the onus to confirm with the court; CSPO violation affirmed |
| Whether convictions were against the manifest weight given alleged intoxication and claim of self‑defense | Credible testimony from deputies and Sobeski’s son supports state’s version; photographic injuries corroborate | Sobeski was intoxicated and aggressed; Conklin acted in self‑defense; witnesses not credible | Court: trial court credited deputies and son, not the parties; credibility is for the factfinder; convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rice, 135 N.E.3d 309 (11th Dist. 2019) (explains manifest‑weight review and deference to factfinder on credibility)
- State v. Cornwell, 48 N.E.3d 169 (9th Dist. 2015) (cohabitation within five years can establish household‑member status under domestic violence statute)
- State v. Awan, 489 N.E.2d 277 (Ohio 1986) (credibility determinations rest with the trier of fact)